Best Of

FPT

https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2034453695027446085

Contrary to reports from Axios, U.S. President Donald J. Trump states that the United States “knew nothing” about Wednesday’s attack by Israel against Iran’s South Pars Gas Field, adding that “Qatar was in no way, shape, or form, involved with it, nor did it have any idea that it was going to happen. Unfortunately, Iran did not know this, or any of the pertinent facts pertaining to the South Pars attack, and unjustifiably and unfairly attacked a portion of Qatar's LNG Gas facility.”

President Trump states following today’s attack by Israel and retaliatory strikes by Iran, “NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars Field unless Iran unwisely decides to attack a very innocent, in this case, Qatar - In which instance the United States of America, with or without the help or consent of Israel, will massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars Gas Field at an amount of strength and power that Iran has never seen or witnessed before.”

Trump still believes he's in control of events.
When you go to war you're in control only of your own forces.

Yes. It is not looking great for this intervention.

I don't see what can now be achieved for it, other than an embarassing cessation of hostilities. Which is very sad for Iran's people.

What you really want is for the army to go over to the Shah, turn on the IRGC, and then it's game over for the regime. But I feel the attacks have united the two.

A more thoughtful US might have considered all the historical precedents there are for people rallying to their governments, even unpleasant or evil ones, once under attack from an enemy, and the lack of examples of where dropping bombs on people has led to fruitful political change.

There have certainly been big pro-regime protests, but I'm not sure they're indicative of a rally - I would imagine the attendees already had a firm view.

However, the regime remains very intact, and very in control of the streets.

To negotiate from a strong position, Trump must stop the flow of Iranian oil and gas to Iran-sympathetic powers, and re-start the flow of Gulf oil to the West.

I think I would probably just non-violently comandeer the tankers currently being sent to China, pay off the crews, and either keep them anchored somewhere or re-route them West. That way Iran is getting no oil out, and China won't pay for oil and gas it's not getting.

So widening the war and involving other great powers in the conflict?

Yep, that has never gone wrong before.

I would not have got into the war in the first place. However, now that Trump is in it, the situation whereby Gulf oil exports are effectively stopped and Iranian ones may continue unhindered isn't really viable if there is to be a successful negotiated peace.

Why could Trump not use his really really good best in the world military to stop Iran exporting any oil. They are supposedly very very great at pinpoint targetting and hav ethe best bombs and missiles etc etc , should be easy peasy given the war is already won a week ago.

Even in big conflicts, it seems there's a lot of queasiness about interrupting energy flows. Neither America nor Russia did much very consistently to destroy ISIS's oil operation out of Syria.

But in this case, Trump must turn this situation to his favour.

He also needs to get Israel under control.

To put it politely his hubris has absolutely F****d him big time and we will all pay the price.

Though if my screwups left me sitting pretty while everyone else pays the price, I'd probably be pretty hubristic as well.

And I'm lovely in a way that Trump isn't.

Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.

In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest

This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.

In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.

I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.

Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.

Most people are net recipients of money from the state over the course of their life. That is the logical outcome of having a progressive tax system, decent public services and an unequal distribution of income.

I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays

No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs

I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.

She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes

Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.

Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?

Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.

The utter failure of Brexit either in practical terms, or judged by public opinion, possibly explains the shift of the Reform, and the right of the Tory party to pushing islamphobia.

Brexit has given what the Leave campaigned promised - more spending on the NHS and control over immigration from the EU.

Which makes it a lot more honest that either the Remain campaign or any governments before or since.

More money for the NHS was inevitable whatever happened and will continue in line with an ageing population and rising costs. It is not a Brexit dividend.

I think it depends on whether Labour MPs believe Angela Rayner would make a better PM than Keir Starmer in a straight swap. No-one likes Starmer but he hangs on faute de mieux. If it's Starmer versus unspecified not-Starmer, he stays

No more whether Labour members think that, Rayner only needs 81 Labour MPs nominating her not to win a majority of Labour MPs

I'm not sure how that dynamic works. Rayner would want to be identified as preferred candidate before it goes to member vote. The member vote would effectively be an endorsement.

She might but she doesn’t have to. Corbyn lost the Labour MPs vote and Truss and IDS lost the Tory MPs vote but they all won most party members votes

Speaking as a leftish member I quite liked Rayner's intervention, but it lacked specifics, while annoying various ex-MPs who I know. Khan's call to rejoin the EU was much more interesting, and it would persuade me to stick with Labour rather than switching to the Greens.

Is Khan's approach to rejoin with a referendum or without?

Not specified, according to the BBC report. In practice I expect it would be required.

The utter failure of Brexit either in practical terms, or judged by public opinion, possibly explains the shift of the Reform, and the right of the Tory party to pushing islamphobia.

Yeah, move onto the next scapegoat.

Sky interview with Sharon Graham of Unite Union asks should the government look again at drilling in the North Sea ?

'Yes - I absolutely do and I think they need to open up the North Sea

We shouldn't let go of one rope before we have got hold of another'

It is economic vandalism not to take the billions of additional tax revenue from the North Sea over the next 2 decades whilst tansitioning

It is not either or but do both, and if any lesson is to be learnt from this crisis it is to develop our own oil and gas fields as are Norway

That lesson is entirely dwarfed by the primary one we should draw from this: we must with the greatest expedience possible reduce our consumption of oil and gas.

To put your lesson into perspective - OEUK, which is the O&G lobbyist, estimate that liberalising the North Sea would increase tax revenues over the next 10 years by £16 billion. And take that with a tablespoon of salt given the industry's long history of talking self-serving excrement.

Our energy support package in 2022 alone was £51 billion. The incessant focus on the North Sea is deranged and panicked whataboutery from people who cannot face the fact that those advocating for renewables over the last 20 years have been entirely vindicated by Ukraine and now Iran.

It's like complaining about water damage even as your house burns down.

Unless my maths is wrong, that £51B could have equipped around £2.5M homes (about 10% of stock) with solar plus ~10kWh battery, which would give a combined ~25GWh of storage (current prices from Google, but done at that scale costs would surely drop further). That's over double our present grid storage, for context. If the money was focused on grid storage, then presumably far more than 25GWh of storage could be added. You could build 1.5-5 Severn barrages for that. Or an extra Hinckley point C, if that seemed value for money.

It would make a lot more sense to pursue those than use government money to fund a price bonanza for oil and gas from dodgy states (and Norway).

Rayners intervention in favour of massively increasing the benefits bill by opposing Shabana Mahmood’s perfectly reasonable changes to ILR is nothing more than a naked attempt to cosy up to Union leaders, like those in Unison and Unite, who oppose the changes.

It doesn’t matter what the cost to the taxpayer is. Rayner is nuts and the changes to ILR are popular.

Labour has won the battle on immigration now she risks blowing it all up,again.

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/britains-ilr-emergency

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/17/boriswave-indefinite-leave-remain-time-bomb-immigration/

Some on the left have spotted the large parliamentary majority that Labour has and wants to use it. They have also worked out that Rainer would never be elected as PM ever so best to mount a putsch now before time runs out.

That would suggest that Ms Rayner is the best that grouping on the left can offer. It also suggests that they aren't concerned about winning the next GE. So what would they be planning to do with the ~3 years left?

I have heard from a Labour MP who normally isn't a Rayner fan (more team Starmer) and their view is Starmer's big problem is that he's ceding the battleground to Farage which isn't a good strategy, Rayner wouldn't do that, plus a Rayner led Labour would attract tactical votes from the Lib Dems and Greens in a way Starmer wouldn't.

Another question Labour MPs should be asking themselves is who do they want to shape immigration policy for the next couple of decades?

Mahmood or Reform? If Labour don't make changes, someone else will, and they will like those changes even less.

This is precisely the McSweeney/Starmer playbook that saw Labour lose half its votes in Gorton. I think they would be better implementing policy they think is right, rather than second guess the priors of people who won't vote for them anyway.

Morning, P.B.

This gas price chart, does not look too good.

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/uk-natural-gas.

Edited - for the correct chart.

I'm no financial expert (clearly, some might say).

I'm surprised the price of Gold isn't much higher with everything going on - gold is traditionally a hedge against trouble yet seems to be dropping.

The next question is how long will it be before the big jump in Natural Gas (presumably because of the attack on Qatar) impacts UK supply and prices. I can already see the energy companies (who have gouged us all for years) seeing an excuse to raise prices yet again (we have to take the pain, they can for a change).

OIl continues to edge higher which again will feed through to the pumps and doubtless throughout the economy at some point.

It does seem however there can be an over-reaction to actual events - my reading (from the BBC) of reports from Qatar, Kuwait and elsewhere is the Iranian strikes are more of nuisance value and such fires as have bene caused are under control - that in itself may be wishful thinking but it wouldn't surprise to see prices retreat considerably as the day goes on.

Nonetheless, the last thing these volatile markets (pardon the pun) need is instability, disinformation and chaos.

As with Ukraine, I'm left wondering how this ends - there seems little sign of the regime breaking down in Tehran currently and absent ground troops, I can't see how change can be forced.

Certainly Rayner will challenge Starmer from the left if Labour are third or worse in the local and devolved elections in May on a platform of reclaiming votes lost to the Greens (though at the risk of leaking centrist swing voters to the Tories and LDs).She would need to get 81 Labour MPs to nominate her which is not a certainty though as the article suggests but if she gets them membership polls show she would beat Starmer in a Labour members poll.

In 1990 of course Tory rules meant while Heseltine prevented Thatcher winning outright in the first round, Major was able to join a second round to beat Heseltine who would likely have beaten Maggie in round two with Tory MPs. Labour leadership rules though mean that all nominated candidates by Labour MPs go to the members, there is no further round with Labour MPs or later joiners to the contest

This is a very good point. It is a mistake to learn lessons from an election contest in a different party with very different rules. It’s really hard to replace a Labour leader at any time, especially in government, but if you want to do so you have to go full throttle and head on.

In the last election I think Labour relied on a lot of voters fed up with the uselessness of the centre right. Many of those voters will be from that minority who can do add ups and take aways and are aware that the government possesses minus three trillion pounds in its non reserves to fulfil all its plans with.

I have not studied Rayner's output much, but she doesn't give the impression of attracting the fiscally boring voter, just as she may not attract that dull group who don't go out of their way to avoid paying tax and believe that we should all be in this together. This group is quiet but may be quite large. I think Labour may need a few of those voters, as a fair number of the fiscally simplistic will drift both Reform and Green.

Rayner comes across as someone who thinks it is perfectly normal for people to be net recipients of money from the state for all of their lives.

She's actually as is Bridget Phillipson the polar opposite of that.

She believes those in genuine need should be supported but should if they can work.

Now remind us who was it created millions of NEETS, millions on benefits without proper due diligence.

Boris
Truss
Sunak

One thing Rayner and Phillipson can't be accused of is sitting back and being hand fed with a silver spoon or state spoon.

Neither either flown in and out as a baby, flown in and out to do exams as a teenager, faking websites, faking American University places.

Both had unimaginablely bad childhoods

Both have massively over achieved on ability and merit

Even the Grocers daughter would be proud to associate with that.

Underestimate them at your peril.

Anyone thinking of voting Labour , LD, Green even PC or SNP in a tight marginal who has to vote tactically to keep a very right wing Tory government or Reform out, is more likely to vote for Angela than Starmer, not less.

The Tories should fear Angela far more than Starmer she will galvanise centre left progressives in a way he can't.

The Tories only hope v Ange is to try to recapture the sane one nation Tory vote. Cleverly would worry Ange far more than Badenoch. Ange will eat her up and spit her out on debate. A political beast honed since her teens in the northern politics a bit of Barbara Castle about her.

Not polite like Keir, no fear of the mysogonist typical Tory clap trap...

The Tories biggest nightmare.